Circulation. 2016;133:165-176. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.016082. 

Background: Although extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (E-CPR) can result in survival after failed conventional CPR (C-CPR), no large, systematic comparison of pediatric E-CPR and continued C-CPR has been reported. 

Methods and Results: Consecutive patients <18 years old with CPR events ≥10 minutes in duration reported to the Get With the Guidelines–Resuscitation registry between January 2000 and December 2011 were identified. Hospitals were grouped by teaching status and location. Primary outcome was survival to discharge. Regression modeling was performed, conditioning on hospital groups. A secondary analysis was performed with the use of propensity score matching. Of 3756 evaluable patients, 591 (16%) received E-CPR and 3165 (84%) received C-CPR only. Survival to hospital discharge and survival with favorable neurological outcome (Pediatric Cerebral Performance Category score of 1–3 or unchanged from admission) were greater for E-CPR (40% [237 of 591] and 27% [133 of 496]) versus C-CPR patients (27% [862 of 3165] and 18% [512 of 2840]). Odds ratios (ORs) for survival to hospital discharge and survival with favorable neurological outcome were greater for E-CPR versus C-CPR. After adjustment for covariates, patients receiving E-CPR had higher odds of survival to discharge (OR, 2.80; 95% confidence interval, 2.13–3.69; P<0.001) and survival with favorable neurological outcome (OR, 2.64; 95% confidence interval, 1.91–3.64; P<0.001) than patients who received C-CPR. This association persisted when analyzed by propensity score–matched cohorts (OR, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.33–2.18; P<0.001; and OR, 1.78; 95% confidence interval, 1.31–2.41; P<0.001, respectively]. 

​Conclusion: For children with in-hospital CPR of ≥10 minutes duration, E-CPR was associated with improved survival to hospital discharge and survival with favorable neurological outcome compared with C-CPR.

Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology: 2016;29(2):229–233
Abstract
​Purpose of review: Bleeding is still a major cause of death in trauma patients. Damage control surgery is a strategy that aims to control bleeding and avoid secondary contamination of the cavity. This article checks the principles and indications of damage control surgery, bleeding management, and the role of the anesthesiologist in trauma context. The efficient treatment of severe trauma and exsanguinated patients includes a surgical approach to the patient performed as quickly as possible. Volemic resuscitation, hemostatic transfusion, prevention and/or treatment of coagulopathy, hypothermia, and acidosis are strategies that reduce bleeding, as well as permissive hypotension.

Recent findings: Specialized literature shows us that the adoption of all of these principles along with reduced surgical time has led to a broader concept called damage control resuscitation.

​Summary: Damage control resuscitation is a treatment strategy in which the recovery of physiological variables is initially prioritized over anatomical variables and can be required in severe trauma patients.

Anesth Analg. 2016 Feb 10. [Epub ahead of print]
BACKGROUND:Based on the data from elective surgical patients, positioning patients in a back-up head-elevated position for preoxygenation and tracheal intubation can improve patient safety. However, data specific to the emergent setting are lacking. We hypothesized that back-up head-elevated positioning would be associated with a decrease in complications related to tracheal intubation in the emergency room environment.
METHODS:This retrospective study was approved by the University of Washington Human Subjects Division (Seattle, WA). Eligible patientsincluded all adults undergoing emergent tracheal intubation outside of the operating room by the anesthesiology-based airway service at 2 university-affiliated teaching hospitals. All intubations were through direct laryngoscopy for an indication other than full cardiopulmonary arrest. Patientcharacteristics and details of the intubation procedure were derived from the medical record. The primary study endpoint was the occurrence of a composite of any intubation-related complication: difficult intubation, hypoxemia, esophageal intubation, or pulmonary aspiration. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the odds of the primary endpoint in the supine versus back-up head-elevated positions with adjustment for a priori-defined potential confounders (body mass index and a difficult intubation prediction score [Mallampati, obstructive sleep Apnea, Cervical mobility, mouth Opening, Coma, severe Hypoxemia, and intubation by a non-Anesthesiologist score]).
RESULTS:Five hundred twenty-eight patients were analyzed. Overall, at least 1 intubation-related complication occurred in 76 of 336 (22.6%)patients managed in the supine position compared with 18 of 192 (9.3%) patients managed in the back-up head-elevated position. After adjusting for body mass index and the Mallampati, obstructive sleep Apnea, Cervical mobility, mouth Opening, Coma, severe Hypoxemia, and intubation by a non-Anesthesiologist score, the odds of encountering the primary endpoint during an emergency tracheal intubation in a back-up head-elevatedposition was 0.47 (95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.83; P = 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS:Placing patients in a back-up head-elevated position, compared with supine position, during emergency tracheal intubation was associated with a reduced odds of airway-related complications.
​